In my opinion, the copy right law here in the Philippines should be more conservative rather than of liberal. Conservative not in the sense that we will not entertain such innovations of newly invented character. My point is that we should give credit and respect to the ones who first invented the thing. In a country full of piracy and imitations such as the Philippines, we should preserve the originality of the works of specific person who gave life to it. One good example is the “yoyo”. We all know “yoyo” as that rounded and stringed toy that kids play nowadays. But not everyone knows, the original “yoyo” was far from what it is today, in terms of both appearance and purpose. Used by the natives 400 years ago as a combat weapon against Spaniards and intruders, the first “yoyo” was large and had sharp edges and studs. It was also attached to thick 20-feet long ropes for flinging at enemies or prey. The modern toy that we know today was the brainchild of law undergraduate Pedro Flores, whose idea was later brought to reality. Thanks to America, the toy was mass produced and became one of the most distinct toys the world has ever known. We should give credit to Pedro Flores and he should be the author of the yoyo and not some American who stole his idea, considering that the idea of “yoyo” are first made by the Filipinos 400 years ago. Now[1] yoyo is being enjoyed by millions of people around the world but the credit of Pedro Flores is buried to the ground.
In the Philippines, the legalities are covered under the
Phil. Copyright Law. The Philippine copyright law is based on United
States copyright law and the principles of the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Philippine copyright laws, unlike
other copyright laws, also protect patents, trademarks, and other forms of
intellectual property
there are also other laws that protect copyrights, like the Optical Media Act, which protects music, movies, computer programs and video games. Copyright implementation is done with the coordination of the Intellectual Property Office IPO and the Copyright Division of the National Library of the Philippines.
there are also other laws that protect copyrights, like the Optical Media Act, which protects music, movies, computer programs and video games. Copyright implementation is done with the coordination of the Intellectual Property Office IPO and the Copyright Division of the National Library of the Philippines.
A party is guilty of copyright infringement if
they violate one of the five exclusive rights given
to copyright owners under the Copyright Act (U.S.) such as the right to
reproduce the copyrighted work, the right to prepare derivative works based
upon the work, the right to distribute copies of the work to the public, the
right to perform the copyrighted work publicly, and the right to display the copyrighted
work publicly.. Included in those rights are the right to prevent others from
reproducing or copying a work, publicly displaying a work, or distributing a
work. As a result, web page authors should take care not to copy the work of
others. An Internet service provider can also be found liable for copyright
infringement even when they are not directly engaged in the copying of
protected materials.
The reproduction right is perhaps the most important right
granted by the Copyright Act (US). Under this right, no one other than the
copyright owner may make any reproductions or copies of the work. Examples of
unauthorized acts which are prohibited under this right include photocopying a
book, copying a computer software program, using a cartoon character on a
t-shirt, and incorporating a portion of another's song into a new song. It is
not necessary that the entire original work be copied for an infringement of
the reproduction right to occur. All that is necessary is that the copying be
"substantial and material."
The best way to obtain images is to create them in a drawing
or other image creation program. In doing so, however, it is best to start from
scratch rather than from someone else's creation. Even if an image is
significantly altered, the new image may infringe upon the copyright in the
first image by being a "derivative work."
When taking images from third-parties. The simple rule is,
"Don't steal someone else's images." The moment an original image or
string of text is fixed on
a hard drive for the first time, it is protected by copyright. Any unauthorized
copying of a protected image is an infringement of the creator's copyright,
unless the use falls within one of the very limited exceptions to the copyright
law, such as "fair
use." In most cases, it is unlikely that the incorporation of an image
into a commercial web-site would be considered a fair use.
When taking licensed images from the Internet. Some images,
such as Microsoft's "Internet Explorer" logo, may be copied, but only
if the would-be copier accepts the terms of a license defining the permissible
uses of the image. Often such licenses provide that the copier cannot alter the
appearance of the image in any way, and may use the image as a link only to
certain designated sites.
When developing text for a web page. The guidelines for text
development are similar to those for obtaining images. Truly original text,
developed by the creator of the web-site, may be used without copyright
concerns. [2]As with images,
appropriating text from third-parties without permission is illegal, unless
there is some substantial "fair use"
justification for the taking. Use of third-party text pursuant to a license
agreement should follow the terms of the license agreement.
The Philippines is the only country in Southeast Asia that
has a provision for resale rights; however, it has not been able to
successfully enforce the provision in favor of the artists or the
copyright-holders since the IP Code’s creation in 1997.
Like many Asian countries, the Philippines' international
reputation in respect of copyright and distribution of counterfeit goods
is poor. It was said that copyright piracy in the country was so bad that the
International Intellectual Property Alliance, a private group composed of trade
associations in copy-right based industries in the United States, had
recommended the Philippines and 12 other countries to be placed in the Priority
Watch List of the Office of the US Trade Representative 2011 Special 301 Report
on Intellectual Property Rights.
"To be included in the USTR's Priority Watch List means
that countries do not provide an adequat[3]e level of IPR protection,
enforcement or market access for persons relying on intellectual property
protection," The passage of the Anti-Camrecording Act of 2009 had prompted
the removal of the Philippines from the USTR's out-of-cycle review last year.
However, the Philippines remain in the lower level Watch List since 2005.
The US have specified in their Special 301 Report for
2012 that the Philippines should remain on the US watch list meaning that, as a
trading partner, the Philippines does not provide adequate protection of US IP
rights protection and enforcement.
Section 200 of republic act number 8293 or the patent
law specifically provides that In every sale or lease of an original work
of painting or sculpture or of the original manuscript of a writer or composer,
subsequent to the first disposition thereof by the author, the author or his
heirs shall have an inalienable right to participate in the gross proceeds of
the sale or lease to the extent of five percent. This right shall exist during
the lifetime of the author and for fifty years after his death.
The section stated should be modified as to provide a
notarized record or list of the previous buyers or leases, in order for the
incumbent owner or holder of the original work of painting, sculpture or
manuscript may keep track of the previous owner and to have an idea of how many
owners have passed. Also, in order to provide the owner help when he needs to
pinpoint the previous owner who have caused a defect to the original work, if
there is any. Thus for the benefit of the author of the original work, he
should also have a copy of the record legally notarized so that he may have a
list of the fruits of his original work.
Under section 22.2, a computer program is not patentable.
For me it should be patentable because computer program[4]s made by a person should
be his own original work and it should be credited to him. Just like paintings
and sculptures, a computer programmer is the author of his computer program
which also must be protected.
